Cruelty must be proven not presumed | Jharkhand High Court quashes divorce decree citing perversity and lack of evidence | Warns against attributing sons' conduct to wife
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar allowed an appeal filed by a wife challenging the Family Court's decree of divorce. The Bench found the conclusion of cruelty to be perverse and unsubstantiated by evidence and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The impugned judgment dated December 21, 2021, and the decree dated January 6, 2022, had dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13(1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on grounds of cruelty, directing the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
The appellant-wife, Shakuntala Devi, and respondent-husband, Mahabir Prasad, were married in 1987 as per Hindu rites at Jagarnath Mandir, Ranchi. They had three children, of whom two sons, , were surviving at the time of the judgment.
The respondent-husband, alleging cruelty and desertion, filed Original Suit No. 24 of 2017 seeking dissolution of the marriage. He contended that the appellant had changed her behaviour around 2012, accusing him of maintaining illicit relations and regularly vandalising his shop. He further claimed to have moved out of the matrimonial home and rented a room due to mental harassment.
It was alleged that in 2015, despite his stoic endurance, the wife continued to disrupt his business, and repeated complaints were made to authorities, which allegedly yielded no positive outcomes. A specific incident dated May 14, 2015, was cited where the wife and sons allegedly entered his shop, assaulted him, and looted money. This led to the filing of Complaint Case No. 162/2015 under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, and 380 IPC.
A local panchayat meeting convened on October 29, 2017, to mediate the dispute proved unsuccessful as the wife did not appear. The husband alleged financial exploitation by the wife, including withdrawal of substantial sums from a joint bank account.
The appellant-wife denied all allegations, asserting that it was the husband who deserted the family and was living with a concubine. She claimed he had abandoned her and the children without support.
Five witnesses, including the respondent himself as PW1, were examined on his behalf. The appellant-wife deposed as DW1. The Family Court, framing four issues, held in favour of the husband, finding cruelty established and granted a decree of divorce.
The Division Bench began by analysing the pleadings and evidence on record, noting that the suit was filed solely on the ground of cruelty. The High Court clarified that under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the element of cruelty must be pleaded and proven.
The Court referred to paragraph 11 of the original plaint, where the only allegation of cruelty was that the wife disturbed the husband in his shop, harming his social reputation. It recorded: "save and except the aforesaid ground no other ground has been taken."
Upon examining the evidence of the husband, particularly paragraphs 8, 10, 11, and 18 of his deposition, the Court found that it was the sons who had directly caused the disturbances in the shop. The husband testified that his sons, instigated by the wife, abused and physically assaulted him.
The High Court observed: "the testimony of the husband even though he has not stated in specific term of commission of cruelty by the wife upon him... that has been accepted to be there by the learned trial Judge, in absence of any evidence."
The Court stressed that cruelty must arise from direct conduct of the spouse. It stated: "if anything has been committed by the sons, it is by the sons and the same cannot be attributed upon the wife to have the ground of cruelty."
On the issue of desertion, the Court held that the Family Judge had erroneously relied upon the fact that the couple had lived separately since 2013, despite the lack of a desertion plea. Citing Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40, the Court reiterated that desertion requires an intentional act of abandonment without consent or reasonable cause.
The Court stated that the Family Court failed to consider the principles laid down in precedents such as Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105, and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742.
In conclusion, the High Court found the Family Court’s judgment perverse, observing: "no specific attributability of commission of cruelty has been alleged to be there in the evidence of the husband... that has been accepted to be there by the learned trial Judge, in absence of any evidence."
Quashing the divorce decree, the Division Bench ordered: "the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2021 and the decree dated 06.01.2022 passed in Original Suit No.24 of 2017 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar is hereby quashed and set aside."
Further, the Court directed: "the matter is remitted back to the learned Family Judge for consideration of the matter afresh."
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate
Case Title: Shakuntala Devi vs. Mahabir Prasad
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:12885-DB
Case Number: First Appeal No. 12 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar
[Read/Download order]
